Clemson professor gets deported
- Thread starter trich24
- Start date
Kyrgyzstan was part of the USSR until the breakup. You're both right from a historical perspective.
Timothy McVeigh says Hi
Still not one of the 7 countries, which is the point. And I don't care who created the list it's wrong.
Really Mr. Munson after all we have agreed & discussed over the years...troll Really! I pray you & your family is well!
TSA missed the guys who flew the planes into the tower etc...failure, 9/11! Vetting takes on average 2 years!
'Since the TSA, as I posted before, was begun NOVEMBER 19, 2001, there is no fvcking way they missed the pilots unless they had time travel abilities.
Edit...Your 2 year vetting average is based on politicians. President Trump isn't a damned politician...he is a businessman. He won't put up with the political "slower than Mississippi mud" BS.
Last edited:
No, that was a failure by the FBI & CIA which were so underfunded during the 1990s that agents were bringing their own personal computers into their offices because their office computers were so outdated.
TSA was a product started after 9/11. Remember before that, you could walk to the actual gate to meet people coming off of planes!!
My friend yes, my imperfect self was in church yesterday, was late, paid my tithes, gave an offering & Prayed To My Only Idol, who is Not False, My Lord & Savior Jesus Christ! Proverbs 3:5-6!
Where in my asking for clarification irt your TSA comment did I say The previous administration was All of That in Foreign Policy, VA etc? I never discussed such, nor have I ever agreed 100% with Any Administration & their policies!
Now since you asked (I don't need to check your comments as I did not question you loyalty), I will ask that you check my post irt this subject prior to placing labels as hypocrite upon me:
1. Yes, I do align myself with American leadership in War & peace time because I pray for all, realize Every Administration is & has been flawed in pursuit of keeping US Safe - Every Political Administration Is Flawed!
2. As a Veteran & Retired Military Man, I still adhere to Respecting & Honoring The Office Of The President of The United States of America!
3. I Vote, serve, am involved in Our Imperfect Process & FYI can see the good & bad in both political parties. I still believe President Carter was not only a Great Man, Great President, Great Navy Man & Christian & his decision to rescue the hostages was well planned just adversely affected by nature. Did you know he is the Only President to give us an Energy Plan!
4. I can go through & challenge your position on thee previous administration irt VA, pay raises etc but don't have the time. I will ask that you acknowledge The Republican Congress & Senate role the past 8 years. For example, President Regan & Mr. O'Neal or President Clinton & Mr. Gingrich worked Very Well Together, despite differences & Compromises to get things done for Our Country!
Finally, thank you for your service. I can respect any man position, will discuss as time permits, but please try & refrain from chastizing me about something I Did Not Say! Pray The Best For You & Your Family.
Man are you OK, please relax!
You are 100% correct & the security people in the airport were not called TSA, so I am Wrong!
The vetting process is needed & if The President, as you say, is not comfortable with 2 years of processing immigrants why the EO?
I did acknowledge not doing my homework irt TSA! Yes, our intelligence agency has some of the blame, although I have many to blame for mismanaging the attack!
Splitting hairs, but no. You could say Soviet. But they were never Russian. The Kyrgyz people would not be cool with that description at all.Kyrgyzstan was part of the USSR until the breakup. You're both right from a historical perspective.
That wasn't the poster's point. But I just wanted to make sure the facts were straight.
I'm fine. I posted the TSA start up before and responded as if you didn't read it. No problem.
The EO is most defintely about vetting. The man has been in office less a month and he has quickly started his campaign promises. I'd probably give the process another 3 months...or less...to properly identify these immigrants from known countries that inspire terrorism.
Let me say this...and other Non-Libs chime in...I lived with Obama's policies for 8 years that sickened me and many, many, many more. I don't like Liberal Socialist or Fascist ideologue. This country wasn't founded on those principals.
In ALL those 8 years their was NEVER protests form non-Libs that was even 1% of the protests against President Trump. It WOULD have been reported as Racist terrorists....even though we had Constitutional rights to do so. Exactly like these fvcking idiots scream about said man with less than a single month of holding office.
So go protest. It's OK. President Trump won't pay attention to Libs or the lying mainstream media BS and will just do the job he was elected for...cleaning up what the Lib agenda did that divided this country racially, killed the Middle Class, hurt Minorities in the pocketbook and had small business closings out numbering openings for the first time since the early 20th century Depression.
If the EO is about vetting, it was unnecessary because what is in process prior to consisted of a minimum 2 year entry into Our Country & deporting of more than 2.5 million immigrants during the Obama Administration! This unsettling act was a Political Move by The President & Mr. Bannon!
The issue I have with This Post is There were protest against President Obama policies & it was Loud & Clear from Our Do Nothing Congress! It is fine The President will not, as you stated, pay attention to a certain part of the electorate! But there is another election in 2 years & this is the greatness of Our Country! Yes, many complain but if we exercise you Rights, Our Country Always Survives.
I am a Non-Liberal & will say without a Doubt, President Obama policies, for me, many were great (Recession, Auto industry & Bin Laden) & did not bother me nearly as Much As The Senator McConnell lead obstruction & do nothing Congress. This group I will enjoy watching the next 2 years! I am happy to know that The President is what he showed during the election! I will always respect The Office Of The President of the US!
Something is just so strange about his particular situation. Depending on what actual story you read you get subtle substantially different facts to this story. For example the EO was signed sometime in the morning of Friday 27th EST when DT was swearing in Mattis and not the Thursday night as noted in this story. also Tehran is +9hours from EST. The article notes her flight from Dubai was due to take off at 3pm Dubai time - 6am EST before the EO was even signed. Further there are a number of discrepancies relayed in subsequent stories and original post changing. Originally indicating TSA officials asked her to leave the plane once boarded, to now just officers, and in some cases she was asked to leave the boarding area prior to boarding. Also the original timeframe of her post was from Saturday 6:50pm not Friday as indicated in all the articles. This story is all over the place and I don't understand why? What am I missing? Crowd funding sites on this particular story are growing substantially. I really hope there is a better explanation on this story forthcoming and hope hacking/malfeasance/personal safety is not involved/threatened.
"Last Thursday night in Tehran, Ms Nazanin sat glued to her TV, watching as Mr Trump signed the executive order. Despite having a valid visa, she began to worry about getting back home, so she decided to cut her long-awaited three-week holiday with her family short.
"That was really a terrifying moment, and I just decided to go ahead and find the earliest flight at any cost," she said.
On Friday Ms Nazanin boarded a flight that left Tehran at 8:10am, and she arrived in Dubai at 10:55am. She then got through security at Dubai and boarded her flight to Washington, which was due to depart about 3:00pm."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-...ops-iranian-scientist-returning-to-us/8222212
"Last Thursday night in Tehran, Ms Nazanin sat glued to her TV, watching as Mr Trump signed the executive order. Despite having a valid visa, she began to worry about getting back home, so she decided to cut her long-awaited three-week holiday with her family short.
"That was really a terrifying moment, and I just decided to go ahead and find the earliest flight at any cost," she said.
On Friday Ms Nazanin boarded a flight that left Tehran at 8:10am, and she arrived in Dubai at 10:55am. She then got through security at Dubai and boarded her flight to Washington, which was due to depart about 3:00pm."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-...ops-iranian-scientist-returning-to-us/8222212
I'm not surprised. Tim Scott has always impressed me.
And I got Duncan's name wrong - it's Jeff Duncan.
this executive order does not make us more safe, there is literally no empirical data to support that claim.
nor does the wall. and now that we KNOW that american taxpayers will be paying for the wall, it literally makes no sense to continue supporting it.
nor does the wall. and now that we KNOW that american taxpayers will be paying for the wall, it literally makes no sense to continue supporting it.
This will look like a silly argument in a couple of days when immigration finds several known terrorists trying to re enter. Not that it would make the news, though.
When and where has this happened in the US, outside of 9-11 which has been known as an intelligence cluster for years? These people with visas and green cards already go through years of vetting.
As has been said above this EO does nothing to help the security of our country and emboldens ISIS and others as our President and much of our electorate come off as xenophobic, Muslim haters and just gives them extra recruitment material.
I hate getting caught up in political issues on here or on Facebook. I'm sure you're a totally reasonable guy and that we'd hit it off over a beer. My issue is not one specific act of terror whether it's in the name of Allah or in the name of I'm a crazy guy from Oklahoma. My concern is Islam does have a more radical facet that refuses to assimilate into their country they're entering. I'm not talking about assimilation as in changing their cultural or religious beliefs, I'm referring to not becoming law abiding citizens and committing crimes at an extremely high rate. I would cite European countries like France and Germany as recent real world examples. Do I think Trump's recent actions are in line? Not sure, but I do know he's not the only POTUS in recent years to implement similar policy. Also, 90 days isn't indefinite and it certainly isn't permanent.
Last edited:
also, to rebut the notion that "obama did this too" here are some clear facts:
mash here
1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.
3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.
4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.
5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.
*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.
Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.
mash here
1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.
3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.
4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.
5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.
*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.
Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/2...lim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/
Good article that explains all this.
Good article that explains all this.
the article is deliberately misleading - the VWP program allows people from a certain set of nations (that none of those countries are on) to enter the US without a visa. the obama administration changed the Visa Waiver Program, requiring anyone who has traveled to or from those 7 countries, and who's home nation is a part of the visa waiver program (europe/japan basically), to obtain a visa first. The trump administration went further and said no more visas OR refugees. see the difference?
I understand what you're saying, and we would probably get along fine on many topics. I too really dislike discussing politics in public, in fact, I believe this is the first ever political thread I've posted in on the board.
However, if you think we're simply talking about Islam here, then that is short sighted. What we're talking about is a President creating an executive order that has already been granted a stay based on whether or not it's constitutional on his 8th day in office. We're talking about a President who is willing to further alienate the rest of the world and push America into an isolationist state that hasn't been seen in a hundred years. If he's willing to push the envelope this early, what is he going to do in the next 4 years and 357 days in office.
And not to be too combative, but the, it's only 90 days and not permanent and only Muslims (substitute Jews), mentality is how Europe actually fell to Nazi's in the last century. America is great, and has been great, because it is the great melting pot of immigrants. That is what this country was built on and those of us whose families aren't recent immigrants sometimes forget that many of the people who were here when our families did decide to come didn't want us any more than "we" want Syrians and Iranians. However, that melding of cultures and blending of ideas is why America is the greatest country in the world.
Also, the topic that started this is a member of the Clemson Family being denied re-admittance into this country because of where she was born. If that in and of itself isn't enough to get you worked up, I'm sorry.
Yea, I got that. But I think it explains origin of the "7 countries" and why other countries are not on the list.
also, THE AMERICAN CONSUMER IS PAYING FOR THE WALL.
a 20% tax on goods from mexico will only be passed along to the american consumer. republicans have used this argument against taxes and tariffs for literally decades.
a 20% tax on goods from mexico will only be passed along to the american consumer. republicans have used this argument against taxes and tariffs for literally decades.
Where does the EO and the Acts stating the countries of concern state that the ban is only for Muslims from these countries? Show me the language where it states only Muslims and not nationals from certain countries?
asked and answered: straight from the EO
"e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."
so, to paraphrase, secstate and DHS can admit refugees from the 7 nations if that person is a religious minority (not muslim) and facing persecution.
It doesn't say it. If it said it explicitly, no one anywhere in the government would touch it. It is, however, for 7 countries that are predominantly Muslim. If you can't see how the rest of the world interprets it, then I don't know what to tell you. The rest of the world, many of whom are our allies, see this as an attempt to prevent Muslims (who already have approved Visas meaning they were vetted) from traveling into our country.
That says they can admit, on a case by case basis, those of religious minorities facing religious persecution. Does not sound all that different from the immigration laws already on the books.
Also seems to apply to refugees only. Not someone just entering with a visa. There are plenty of Muslims being allowed if they are from Turkey, France, Saudi, etc.
And, I understand the EO bans refugees from Syria.
You should read the article I posted on who decided on those 7 countries.
thats the text of the EO.
so, EO says no more refugees for 90 days. this clause says, except for religious minorities in those 7 countries. seems pretty clear to me.
As I stated above, I don't care who created the 7 countries as it's wrong. I'm not an Obama apologist. However, we are keeping people who have valid travel documentation out of our country, I think it's a dangerous road to travel for the idea of security. They are not citizens and aren't granted all protections thereof but I believe that until proven otherwise, the people who have been vetted should be essentially treated as such. They pay taxes and are contributing members of society, so again while this quote is probably slightly out of context, but we'll go with it anyway:
So, if you think this stops at these 7 primarily Muslim countries, and won't go further, I guess you've bought your temporary Safety.
Well, America was still an isolationist country up until WWII (under FDR), so it hasn't been 100 years. And IMO, America isn't great because it's a melting pot of different ethnicities. Where you're born doesn't make you special (contrary to what our native Charlestonian posters seem to think
) America is great because it has created an environment for those that want to succeed...can succeed. And because of that, it has drawn the best of what the rest of the world has to offer. That's a wonderful thing. But I do have a problem with those coming to this country with intentions of weakening or intentionally destroying a way of life that has shown to be beneficial for everyone. Again, I don't know 100% how I feel about the 90 day ban, but I do think that DT cares about this country and wants to see it prosper.Similar threads
